Weekly Shredder 42:
Scott McClellan Presser
by James Norton

Always newsy. Always timely. Always dodging the bullet. It's Poppin' Fresh Weasel Time with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan!

Q: Scott, can we get a clear "yes" or "no" answer on whether the president agrees on the vice president's assessment that the insurgency is in "its last throes?" Is it a "yes" or "no"?

For archives, audio, and background about the column, click here.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I already answered this question the last couple of days.

Number of words it takes to say "yes" or "no": 1

Number of words it takes to say "I think I already answered this question the last couple of days": 12

Clarity of "yes" or "no": Waterford crystal

Clarity of "I think I already answered this question the last couple of days": Rich chocolatey fudge

SCOTT McCLELLAN: We continue to urge the Senate to give John Bolton an up or down vote. ... But it's clear that a minority of Democratic leaders are intent on blocking his nomination and preventing him from getting to work advancing comprehensive reform at the United Nations.

Q: Scott, it's not just the Democratic leadership or members of the Democratic Party — it's members of the president's own party, some of which are calling for him to withdraw the nomination. So is he going to heed those calls or not?

McCLELLAN: No, that's not correct, Jennifer. It's a minority of Senate Democrats that are preventing this nomination from moving forward. It's very clear that he has —

Q: Senator Voinovich is a Republican.

Heh. Interesting thing about this exchange: McClellan does this constantly.

He will argue the facts as he wishes them, not the facts as they are. It's up to you, the journalist, to force him to talk about the actual facts. At which point, you've used up all your precious time.

More specifically: Bolton does have "majority support," because the GOP is the majority party. The question isn't whether Bolton has more than 50 votes in the Senate, it's why he wasn't a slam-dunk, and why Voinovich has (in a tardy fashion) voted his conscience instead of voting the party line.

The answer is that there's a legitimate controversy about nominating to the UN a dude who has gone on the public record as being against multilateralism — unless it purely suits US interests, which is also known "unilateralism."

McClellan would rather adhere to the "majority" talking point than engage the substantial criticism of Bolton, a decision as slimy as it is smart.

Q: Is the president concerned about the recruitment being down in his home country, he can't get — you know, some day you may give a war and no one will come? And, also, the second part of the question, is there any member of the Bush clan who is in the military service now, that you know of?

McCLELLAN: I'd have to go check; that's a pretty large clan, as you —

Q: Would you do that?

McCLELLAN: — as you referred to. In terms of — and certainly there are members of the family that have served and served very admirably in the Armed Forces.

Q: I'm not talking about the past, I'm talking about now.

Interesting question, interesting answer. Daily Kos has aggressively pushed the argument that we're currently being led by a bunch of chickenhawks. Today's Republicans haven't served in the military. They don't want their children serving in the military. But they're very, very supportive of putting the military into a dangerous, optional, possibly catastrophic fight in Iraq.

McCLELLAN: We continue to stand in solidarity with Aung San Su Kyi and call for her immediate release. That is something we have expressed concerns about for some time now. And we want to see action taken.

Or... what, exactly?

Like every president, Bush picks his battles. Never invade a country that is only offending the world with human rights violations, when you can go after a country that is offending the world with human rights violations, hogging a perfect new platform for projecting American military power in the Middle East, and sitting on a ton of oil.

That said: If Aung San Su Kyi is the new Nelson Mandela, wouldn't it do a lot of good for the US image if the president had an action plan for acheiving her release — not just "concerns," and a desire for someone else to take action?

On top of being, you know, morally upright?

Q: Scott, on Guantanamo and Africa — President Bush's new friend, Bill Clinton, has said that Guantanamo needs to be cleaned up or closed. What are your thoughts about that, as you're saying that the allegations have been looked into?

McCLELLAN: Well, I'm not sure specifically what he's referring to.

Q: He's referring to the abuse and the problems at Guantanamo Bay.

McCLELLAN: And what abuse are you referring to?

Q: The abuse of the prisoners, the fact that the prisoners, some of them — you still have, what is it, 500 —

McCLELLAN: So you can't point to anything specifically.

Is this a game for McClellan?

"ABUSE? WHAT ABUSE?" A GITMO PRIMER
CHARGE	SOURCE	LINK
"We were committing war crimes"	CIA analyst via Seymour Hersh	[link]
"Half the people there didn't belong there"	ditto	[link]
There are dozens of videotapes of American guards allegedly engaged in brutal attacks on detainees	Freed British prisoner via The Observer	[link]
Prisoners were lying in their own feces	CIA analyst via Hersh	[link]
"Military guards were slapping prisoners, stripping them, pouring cold water over them and making them stand until they got hypothermia"	FBI agents via senior intelligence official via Hersh	[link]
The Quran was handled roughly and disrespectfully on many occasions	FBI reports via New York Times	[link]
There is a "worrying deterioration" in the mental health of a large number of the detainees	Red Cross via Amnesty International	[link]
FBI agents witnessed interrogations that they considered abusive and possibly illegal	FBI reports via New York Times	[link]
Eight soldiers have been punished for offenses ranging from humiliating detainees to physical assault	The Pentagon	[link]
Guards would "fuck with [detainees] as much as we could" by inflicting pain on them	Camp guard via Hersh	[link]
Prisoners were left in straitjackets in intense sunlight with hoods over their heads	Pentagon adviser via Hersh	[link]

McCLELLAN: What abuse are you referring to?

You douche.

Note that McClellan isn't challenging Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the New Yorker. No one is challenging his sources or facts. They're just being swept off the table.

All of this calls to mind something important.

If the presidential press conference is nothing more than a bullshit-shoveling session — which it almost certainly is — why not send your newsroom interns to the conference, and have your reporters spend their time digging into archives, hunting for disgruntled sources, and talking to policy experts?

Why not give the presidential press conference the ultimate double deuce — not a status-enhancing boycott, as has been called for in the past, but a humiliating, nose-thumbing interncott?

In the hierarchy-mad world of Washington where title is everything, sending your cub reporters sends a much stronger signal than not sending your hardest hitters.

Give the lies a tiny megaphone, and go out looking for the truth. It's out there. As hard as that may be to believe these days, it's really out there — somewhere miles away from Scott McClellan's podium, chained to the floor of a cell or smashed against the wall by a riot shield, or lying there, hooded, baking in the bright Cuban sunshine.

E-mail James Norton at jim@flakmag.com.

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)